• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are gamers more negative, pickier, and more entitled than they used to be?

BlackTron

Member
People who care about 60 fps and pixel counts definitely know about Lumen and nanite. Even if they dont, they want next gen visuals. Thats literally the entire premise of the thread... people want next gen visuals without understanding the cost of 60 fps.


i mean both PS4 and PS5 cost $399 at launch. Less than the cheapest PS3 sku and on par with the X360.

Gamers only became entitled after Sony, MS and third parties phoned in the first two to three years of this gen with cross gen releases that ran at 60 fps at higher resolutions. The moment devs actually started pushing fidelity, that became impossible and now they have to resort to 720p which looks like shit on 4k tvs everyone is rocking.

i never saw anyone complaining about 30 fps in witcher 3, batman ak, uncharted 4, horizon 1, zelda botw, rdr2, or even ghost of tsushima and tlou2. This is a relatively new phenomenon.

So PS4 and PS4 Pro Pro both cost $399. Now the real PS5 costs 800.

I think you answered your own question, maybe some people expected PS5 to look good on their modern TV without upgrading halfway.

Sony/MS are encouraging cross-pollination with PC and making PC look like a good way to play their own games, so the most authentic fans of these brands might be figuring things out lately like 60FPS is actually good and how to double-click a game in the scary world of Windows.
 

Hookshot

Member
When I was younger I'd buy shit like "Conquest Earth" because I didn't know any better, now any game is a click away so there's no excuse to buy broken crap.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
So PS4 and PS4 Pro Pro both cost $399. Now the real PS5 costs 800.

I think you answered your own question, maybe some people expected PS5 to look good on their modern TV without upgrading halfway.

Sony/MS are encouraging cross-pollination with PC and making PC look like a good way to play their own games, so the most authentic fans of these brands might be figuring things out lately like 60FPS is actually good and how to double-click a game in the scary world of Windows.
I think the PS5 looks good on modern TV.
 

Spiral1407

Neo Member
No, we're just tired of games being sub-par. It was understandable on the 360/PS3 considering the leap those systems made in a variety of areas, but how are we still unable to get hit a 1080p60 minimum on hardware that is nearly 50x as powerful? Especially when other aspects like AI and physics haven't improved as signifcantly since then and games are launching more broken than ever.
 
Last edited:

Roberts

Member
The older I get, the more I just want to celebrate a game I enjoy with like-minded people. I don't really get a kick out of being negative, snarky or combative. Also, I tend to avoid overly negative threads here so I don't really know what you are talking about. jk of course, but, yeah.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
No, we're just tired of games being sub-par. It was understandable on the 360/PS3 considering the leap those systems made in a variety of areas, but how are we still unable to get hit a 1080p60 minimum on hardware that is nearly 50x as powerful? Especially when other aspects like AI and physics haven't improved as signifcantly since then and games are launching more broken than ever.
Do you think that these systems would struggle to hit 1080p/60fps on a UE3 engine game from 2008? Of course not. PS5 could run PS4 games at 4K/60fps without breaking a sweat. The issue is that these games are putting in these graphical technologies that are insanely computationally expensive. PS3 could run these games at maybe 5 seconds per frame, maybe lol.
 

MikeM

Member
People who care about 60 fps and pixel counts definitely know about Lumen and nanite. Even if they dont, they want next gen visuals. Thats literally the entire premise of the thread... people want next gen visuals without understanding the cost of 60 fps.
Apparently performance mode is chosen by 75% of PS5 gamers. Hardly doubt any of them care about Lumen or Nanite. If they did, the DF sub base would reflect that.

Thankfully, Sony does well in delivering frames and high quality visuals. Maybe devs should just be better?
 
Last edited:

BigBeauford

Member
Gamers want novel experiences untainted by greed and corporate design by committee. The fact that a 16 bit game is up for GotY should dispell that we only care about graphical fidelity and presentation.
 
If you don't complain you get stomped over.

What are you waiting for? For a fucking CEO to go to your house, fuck your dog and kill your wife?
Sure, you can type a word salad on twitter to an executive and try to hurt their feelings or cause them to be spiteful, but a better impact would probably be to keep that 59.99/69.99 in your pocket.

The big guys chase trends and purchases after all is said and done 🤷‍♂️

The problem is that everyone is stopping at step 1, which is 'complain and be negative about bad games' and barely anyone does step 2 anymore, which is 'recommend a better game/new experience'. It causes a negative spiral where there used to be balance.
 
Last edited:
Yes I think so. I'm surprised about the complaints of minor graphical glitches recently for SH2 and just how involved people get analyzing these games that can be played and enjoyed easily.

If a game looks like slightly dated then it's belittled yet others are hoping we can have scaled back games to cut game budgets and time to release, it doesn't seem possible with how people react to face models not having skin pores and other details. Yes I like progress and tech but you have to be able to enjoy games. Take a look at some PS2 games and see how bad everything looked and even the jank, poor animations, take into account the small teams and the whole product we get today and enjoy the game and stop wandering round like you're in an Unreal Demo.
 
Last edited:

Spiral1407

Neo Member
Do you think that these systems would struggle to hit 1080p/60fps on a UE3 engine game from 2008? Of course not. PS5 could run PS4 games at 4K/60fps without breaking a sweat. The issue is that these games are putting in these graphical technologies that are insanely computationally expensive. PS3 could run these games at maybe 5 seconds per frame, maybe lol.
Batman Arkham Knight runs on UE3 and I can't name that many games that completely visually outclass it even in 2024. I'm in favour of ditching these fancy "graphical technolgies" until the hardware can actually handle it. Just imagine if every game looked like AK and also performed well too.
 
Last edited:

deriks

4-Time GIF/Meme God
It's a mixbag

- You can't curse online. That's bullshit
- graphics nowadays are fine. Can be better, but we need just better assets, better performance and better quality control
 
With more games/devices to choose from, people get picker. That's just logical.
There's so many games coming out now which is why you shouldn't inject divisive social media things into your product.
People can't even get to all the games they want to play, so it's easy to pass on any game for any reason.
 

Laptop1991

Member
No, it's the industry releasing inferior often broken unoriginal more expensive games with alot of them just being cash cows, the gamers, me included are just reacting to what the industry is doing. And if they were releasing the games we want to play in a decent state, there would be a lot less criticism.
 
I don't have a PS5 but I believe him because I've seen 720 Switch games on a 55" 4k TV and uh...
Is it really that bad? I am legitimately curious, as I don't own any tv or monitor over 1080p. I know games like sonic frontiers look like shit on my 1080p set on switch, but that is because it dips to sub sd resolutions (how sega did so poorly with the dnyamic resolution and draw distance).

This is what holds me back from going 4k. I play and have hooked up a wii, ps2, ps3, xbox x, ps5, steamlink, ps1 classic, snes mini, genesis mini, TG16 mini, all use lower resolutions. I'd hate to buy a new tv and only modern ps5 games look good. Plus old set has component out and tons of inputs that modern sets seem to skimp on big time.
 

BlackTron

Member
Is it really that bad?

Yes. My main console is Switch so my main TV even with better stuff attached is still 1080 47". TOTK looked fine on it but I still use to Switch on other TVs or houses and let's just say there's a reason people are clamoring for Switch 2.
 
I think people are sick and tired of being overcharged for worse and worse products. Devs use the Internet as a crutch and just think, "we'll send out a patch" instead of releasing a polished game. When there was more physical media before the Internet became standard, they had to make sure the game was not in such a shit state as recalling them cost so much more. Now, we pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less quality. How many "letters" have we seen from the devs saying "we stride to do better. We will make it right for our loyal fans, " etc. All while they are happy to take our money knowing the state of the game and we have such a tiny window for a window, if we are lucky.

On the other hand, again, due to the Internet being what it is, even the most deluded, annoying piece of shit can cry about anything, and it gets seen. That goes for customers and devs. When so many people start being cunts, it then paints a picture that everyone must be the same, and we aren't. There seems to be no pride left in making a polished product. Instead, it's like most things are early access with no guarantee of leaving.
 
Probably yes, however I think you need to look at these things in context. Gamers are nothing compared to most sports fan. The coach makes one bad decision and the person is on death row.
 

BlackTron

Member
I think people are sick and tired of being overcharged for worse and worse products. Devs use the Internet as a crutch and just think, "we'll send out a patch" instead of releasing a polished game. When there was more physical media before the Internet became standard, they had to make sure the game was not in such a shit state as recalling them cost so much more. Now, we pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less quality. How many "letters" have we seen from the devs saying "we stride to do better. We will make it right for our loyal fans, " etc. All while they are happy to take our money knowing the state of the game and we have such a tiny window for a window, if we are lucky.

On the other hand, again, due to the Internet being what it is, even the most deluded, annoying piece of shit can cry about anything, and it gets seen. That goes for customers and devs. When so many people start being cunts, it then paints a picture that everyone must be the same, and we aren't. There seems to be no pride left in making a polished product. Instead, it's like most things are early access with no guarantee of leaving.

Basically gamers are to blame for begging to buy unfinished games, including knowingly (early access). In theory, the Internet allows games to be updated to everyone's benefit, and games that otherwise would have trouble making it through development raise money to reach the finish line. But of course the most extreme advantage possible is taken of it so now we have "live service Halo" that is just a stripped game with all the old features patched in piecemeal or early access games that languish forever. For every one time the new possibilities are used in a well-meaning way, there are 30 more where the dev just used them to get away with a crappier job.

It was better when there was pressure to deliver day one, and it made sequels more meaningful. Now even a sequel is just starting the whole process over from scratch again.

It would be hilarious if Ubisoft was unable to update the new Star Wars game and the harsh lesson would be even more painfully felt. Personally, I strongly believe people showing up day one with seventy (or more) dollars should get the best version of the game, not the beta. Since of course we can't turn off the internet, it's on gamers to simply not buy it. Maybe they finally had enough.
 

Radical_3d

Member
No. Gamers are easy consumers “con las tragaderas como la boca del metro” as we say here. They’d swallow shit if it has an EA Sport logo. That’s how we ended accepting and suffering many bad practices such as DLC, half assed games, season passes and more. I have a theory about that but that’s for another post.

Now that’s gamers, but if your target are hardcore gamers you’re fucked. We are very picky. I’ve played WipEout in Sega Saturn at 15fps and my major complain was the transparencies were checkerboarded. X-Wing must have run in single digits in my PC, and UFO: Enemy Unknown was so slow that it was a flying bullet simulator. Now if a 60fps game falls to 50 everyone is throwing shit like a main of enraged monkeys.
 

killatopak

Gold Member
It's a matter of time investment. A lot of games gets released and I have a limited amount of time.

Personally it's more than quality. Taste is also a factor. I'm sure each and every one of us have genres we prefer.
 
Last edited:

salva

Member
Absolutely yes.
But I love reading the man baby melt downs
fLcZwCx.gif
 
100% yes.

Human behavior doesn’t really change but the technological advancements in gaming have slowed. In this vacuum, people will find more and more granular detail to fuss over.

Nobody in the console space talked about resolution and framerate until PS4 and XBO.
 
Basically gamers are to blame for begging to buy unfinished games, including knowingly (early access). In theory, the Internet allows games to be updated to everyone's benefit, and games that otherwise would have trouble making it through development raise money to reach the finish line. But of course the most extreme advantage possible is taken of it so now we have "live service Halo" that is just a stripped game with all the old features patched in piecemeal or early access games that languish forever. For every one time the new possibilities are used in a well-meaning way, there are 30 more where the dev just used them to get away with a crappier job.

It was better when there was pressure to deliver day one, and it made sequels more meaningful. Now even a sequel is just starting the whole process over from scratch again.

It would be hilarious if Ubisoft was unable to update the new Star Wars game and the harsh lesson would be even more painfully felt. Personally, I strongly believe people showing up day one with seventy (or more) dollars should get the best version of the game, not the beta. Since of course we can't turn off the internet, it's on gamers to simply not buy it. Maybe they finally had enough.
The thing is if you look at the last two the game award winners, and probably the third this year, which i am guessing black myth wukong most likely just due to numbers, they’ve all launched with pretty big performance issues yet, yet they win goty. Quite simply put the gaming media is just a bunch of pushovers.. there really isn’t much pressure nowadays to actually like keep pushing developers to actually release a quality product unless it’s an outcry from the fanbase because they got a shitty product. Gaming scores are way too high for what they are especially when you get games that are just totally fucked up as far as frame pacing, stutters, and things along that line. It’s unacceptable, but rairly gaming media outlets are gonna put their neck out that far in most cases.
 

Fbh

Member
I mean yeah I do think there is a lot of negativity online, lot of people that only like to complain, and have very high expectations that only seem to get worse when they get infused with technical ignorance and insane rose tinted glasses about how gaming used to be.

But I think a lot of them are also a loud minority that don't represent the entire gaming community and, on the other side of the argument, I think people have a tendency to treat all gaming discourse as if it's coming from some hivemind instead of millions of users with varying opinions and tastes that will inevitably result in conflicting views and statements.
 

Arsic

Loves his juicy stink trail scent
Yes.

There’s also more games to pick from than ever daily so settling for mediocrity at $70 a pop isn’t an option for most.
 

EverydayBeast

ChatGPT 0.1
Developers have made more bad decisions in the last few years than all of gaming combined (the dialogues, the weird gender narratives, driving cosmetics, embarrassing NPCs, fatty map layouts, not trusting gameplay mechanics etc.) so when you got a platform like this you’ll especially get criticism.
 

BlackTron

Member
The thing is if you look at the last two the game award winners, and probably the third this year, which i am guessing black myth wukong most likely just due to numbers, they’ve all launched with pretty big performance issues yet, yet they win goty. Quite simply put the gaming media is just a bunch of pushovers.. there really isn’t much pressure nowadays to actually like keep pushing developers to actually release a quality product unless it’s an outcry from the fanbase because they got a shitty product. Gaming scores are way too high for what they are especially when you get games that are just totally fucked up as far as frame pacing, stutters, and things along that line. It’s unacceptable, but rairly gaming media outlets are gonna put their neck out that far in most cases.

Gaming media outlets are just working for game publishers anyway, so you're right that the only reason they have is the reaction of a fanbase.
 
No. Gamers are easy consumers “con las tragaderas como la boca del metro” as we say here. They’d swallow shit if it has an EA Sport logo. That’s how we ended accepting and suffering many bad practices such as DLC, half assed games, season passes and more. I have a theory about that but that’s for another post.

Now that’s gamers, but if your target are hardcore gamers you’re fucked. We are very picky. I’ve played WipEout in Sega Saturn at 15fps and my major complain was the transparencies were checkerboarded. X-Wing must have run in single digits in my PC, and UFO: Enemy Unknown was so slow that it was a flying bullet simulator. Now if a 60fps game falls to 50 everyone is throwing shit like a main of enraged monkeys.
It must be a generation thing too. I remember x-wing being a slide show, along with smaller screens for ultima underworld, doom and wolf3d on a 386sx 16mhz back in the 90s. I loved every minute of it. I remember getting a pentium 2 clone cheap, only to realize it wasn't a real pentium but a cyrix m2. Which was bad for 3d apparently. I didn't know. I slapped a voodoo 3 in there and then a soundblaster live to bump up my fps to playable. It was great playing thief at 30 fps quake 3 at 24 fps etc.... Then I started building my own pc and it all changed, but even in the 2000s Crysis would melt, yet we played it anyway and had a blast.
 

Krathoon

Member
I think people are simply getting tired of the gaming industry. It is all rigged. The reviews are rigged.

It is just this machine to get you to buy games.

Video games used to be this cool undergound thing and that has been lost.

I notice that I am becoming more and more interested in indie games because it brings that feeling back.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
It’s not entitlement to expect good performance from a game. Shit should run well right off the bat, not weeks later.

Graphics however are subjective, and some people are a ridiculous.
 

MagiusNecros

Gilgamesh Fan Annoyance
Make good games. And stop making interactive movies. This isn't that hard. Charging $70-$100 for a $20-$40 product probably isn't a good thing either.

Games from 2012 and Indies largely carry the gaming scene now more then ever. Because they have something called creative artistic vision instead of solely making a game to make the most money for the least effort on top of doing more with less as opposed to companies who throw a couple hundred million in development and get shocked when their "movie" doesn't sell.

Gamers just have to be ruthless gardeners when looking at games. A whole lot you can weed out by just analyzing a game after release and waiting to see if it's worthwhile.

If they really want to push that price tag then I'll demand bare minimum a expected play time of 200 hours in their "big game".
 

6502

Member
Gaming requires me to work more, in both time and money paid. Things that were a free bonus are now another charge. The product is often faulty on closed systems and I also have to endure political BS I don't want or expect to see (inserting shit in existing franchises which is a breach of trust in me being loyal to a brand).

My demands did not change, theirs did.

Shit was ridiculed for being bad back in the 80s / 90s in magazines and social groups. Still is today. There is just a greater mass of shit out there doing even greater shitty things.
 
Top Bottom